CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012 Neupane. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect Mr. Neupane’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 10.7 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations that Mr. Neupane’s arbitrary detention on 21 May 1999 and his subsequent enforced disappearance amount per se to treatment contrary to article 7. The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. In addition, the Committee takes note of the article in the Mahanagar Daily, published three months after Mr. Neupane’s disappearance, which reported that he was subjected to torture while being held by the Nepal Police in Pokhara. As the State party has not provided evidence to clarify the facts regarding Mr. Neupane’s treatment while in detention, the Committee finds that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Neupane and his treatment while in detention constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Having reached that conclusion, the Committee will not examine the claims regarding the violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant for the same facts. 10.8 The Committee notes the anguish and distress caused to the authors by the disappearance of Mr. Neupane and the lack of information on the circumstances surrounding it and that no investigation has been carried out to ascertain his fate and, in the event of his death, to return his remains to his family. The Committee also notes the authors’ allegation that after Mr. Neupane’s enforced disappearance they were regularly visited by members of the security forces, which exacerbated their fear and anxiety. The Committee further notes the information that, as a result of the family relationship between Nisha Neupane and Mr. Neupane, the former was also a victim of arbitrary detention14 and subjected to torture. In this regard, the Committee considers that these facts reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the authors. 10.9 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegation under article 9 of the Covenant that Mr. Neupane was deprived of his liberty by agents of the State, namely the Nepal Police, on 21 May 1999. No legal grounds were provided for his detention. His arrest was not entered into an official register. He was never brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power, and he could not bring proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of a response from the State party in this regard, the Committee considers that the detention of Mr. Neupane constitutes a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 10.10 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee notes the authors’ allegation that despite evidence that Mr. Neupane had been detained by the Nepal Police, the Nepalese authorities have denied categorically their involvement in his enforced disappearance. The State party has failed to provide relevant information concerning Mr. Neupane’s fate and no effective investigation has been carried out to ascertain his whereabouts, effectively placing him outside the protection of the law. The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal of the right to recognition as a person before the law, in particular if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically impeded.15 The Committee therefore finds that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Neupane deprives him of the protection of the law and of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 10.11 The authors invoke article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which provides, inter alia, that 14 15 10 See E/CN.4/2006/56 and Corr.1, annex IV. See communications No, 2164/2012, Basnet v. Nepal, Views adopted on 12 July 2016, para. 10.9; No. 2038/2011, Chhedulal Tharu et al. v. Nepal, Views adopted on 3 July 2015, para. 10.9; and No. 2134/2012, Arias Molina v. Colombia, para. 9.5.; No. 2164/2012, Basnet v. Nepal, Views adopted on 12 July 2016, para. 10.9; No. 2184/2012, Nakarmi v. Nepal, Views adopted on 10 March 2017, para. 11.10; No. 2185/2012, Dhakal v. Nepal, Views adopted on 17 March 2017, para. 11.10.